Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

All things outside of Burning Man.
Locked
User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:30 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
So, Tipper Gore's attempts at censorship... Yay or nay?
Hey I remember that and yes Tipper got blasted out for that and yes she is sorry for that. (cites I would but it'll have to be another time as to I cannot find it right now.)
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:34 pm

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
So, Tipper Gore's attempts at censorship... Yay or nay?
Hey I remember that and yes Tipper got blasted out for that and yes she is sorry for that. (cites I would but it'll have to be another time as to I cannot find it right now.)
Do you really believe Tipper is apologetic for her left leaning politcally correct censorship? If so, I have some land east of Miami with a minor drainage problem... maybe a few feet of the Atlantic Ocean to drain, but no sweat... the price is WAY cheap.

I imagine Tipper is sorry she isn't the First Lady, but beyond that....?
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:36 pm

right now everybody is sorry that she is'nt the first lady. that's neither here nor there.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:42 pm

DVD Burner wrote:right now everybody is sorry that she is'nt the first lady. that's neither here nor there.
oh puleeze!

This news ought to bind up your leftist undies.

No Retirements As Supreme Court Ends Term
Tue Jun 29, 2:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court wrapped up its nine-month term on Tuesday — on time — with praise for the administration's retiring solicitor general and no retirement announcements of its own.

The court traditionally ends its term before July 1, and the justices managed to do that despite dealing with major issues late in the year, including President Bush's war on terror.

In past years, justices who planned to retire announced their intentions at the close of a term. A retirement had been considered unlikely this year, however. All but one of the justices is past 60. The oldest, Justice John Paul Stevens, is 84. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist turns 80 this fall.

Rehnquist praised Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who is leaving the job as the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer next month to return to law practice.

Olson's wife, Barbara, died in the Sept. 11 attacks, and he became a prominent defender of the government's anti-terrorism policies.

"The court recognizes the significant responsibilities that were placed on him to represent the government of the United States before this court and to perform other important functions during difficult times," Rehnquist said Tuesday.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Re: Who's f-ing who?

Post by cowboyangel » Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:52 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:no you don't ...not when a highly visible public official like the vice says it in such a public setting......different standards for different folks????


the senate had this kind of shit going on before the Civil War
Apparently, you do have a double standard... because, this administration can't say "fuck" but it was OK for the previous President to get head in the oval office with a subordinate employee... that's right folks, you can break EEO laws for sex, but you can't get angry with the opposition and tell them to "fuck themselves"

and now maybe you see it from my perspective....







yet i doubt it.


whoah there Joel my friend....I intensely dislike Clinton....his stupid shenanigans with lewinsky cost Gore more votes than Nader


Cheney's a hypocrite just as the rest of his twisted crew......the religious right is well nervous with the antics of this admin.......but they're lost in Gay Marriage oh god!!!!!!!!!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:06 am

Speaking of Presidents:


Television's latest reality TV host: Al Sharpton


Associated Press

Last update: 30 June 2004



NEW YORK -- Al Sharpton, who failed in his last bid for a new job -- president of the United States -- now has a job on a reality TV show that guides people on career makeovers.

Spike TV, the Viacom cable channel that targets a young male audience, said Sharpton will host "I Hate My Job," premiering in the fall.

"I like the concept of trying to have people discover their purpose in life, and not have the world define them or settle for less than who they want to be just to pay their bills," Sharpton said Tuesday.

The eight male contestants in the show will quit their jobs and work with two "life counselors," Sharpton and California psychologist Stephanie Raye, who will give them advice and weekly assignments. A panel will decide which contestants will continue each week.

"Reverend Sharpton came from a modest upbringing and became a major political force and presidential candidate," said Kevin Kay, Spike's executive vice president for programming. "He's lived the American dream so he's the perfect person for our eight contestants to learn from."

"I'm the working man's (Donald) Trump," Sharpton said. "He brings people into the penthouse. We bring them into the house."

Since his campaign ended, Sharpton has been aggressively seeking out media jobs and has signed a deal with CNBC as a commentator, and possibly develop a talk show.

An ordained Pentecostal minister, Sharpton isn't abandoning politics, however, and scoffed at the idea that being the featured player in a reality show is somewhat undignified for a once and perhaps future candidate.

His campaign for president attracted more attention after he was host of "Saturday Night Live."

"A lot of politicians don't do it because they can't do it," he said. "I can do it."

------
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:14 am

WASHINGTON wrote: Olson's wife, Barbara, died in the Sept. 11 attacks, and he became a prominent defender of the government's anti-terrorism policies.
I really hate to say anything bad about the dead but I really have no problems telling the truth about them either.

She was the ULTAMATE BITCH.

Good riddens.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:17 am

certitude

SYLLABICATION: cer·ti·tude
PRONUNCIATION: sûrt-td, -tyd
NOUN: 1. The state of being certain; complete assurance; confidence. 2. Sureness of occurrence or result; inevitability. 3. Something that is assured or unfailing: “eager to swap the hazards of American freedom for the gray certitudes of Soviet life” (Time). See synonyms at certainty.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Late Latin certitd, from Latin certus, certain. See certain.



June 30, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Beware of Certitude
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Only two days ago, I wrote with all the confidence of a bigfoot pundit that French President Jacques Chirac, at the NATO summit in Istanbul, would find it in his political interest to paper over past differences with the U.S., Britain and most other European nations about overthrowing Saddam.

So much for my certitude. Instead, Chirac stuck his thumb in the alliance's eye: he would not allow any troops under the NATO flag to help the newly sovereign Iraqis defeat the terrorists. Even the training of Iraqi police officers would have to take place outside that country; Chirac slyly suggested Rome.

And when President Bush dared to hope that the host nation, Turkey (a NATO nation that did more than France to counter the Soviet threat), would be accepted into the European Union, Chirac lashed out at the American with: "He not only went too far, but he has gone into a domain that is not his own. He has nothing to say on this subject."

I was profoundly mistaken about how far into isolation this former ally would go. Evidently Chirac finds political salvation in being openly and contemptuously anti-Bush. He has placed all of his nation's diplomatic chips on the defeat of Bush in November.

Chirac takes that gamble because he is afflicted with certitude about this: if freedom fails in Iraq, France's long and profitable protection of Saddam will somehow be justified.

But certitude is an uncertain thing. Take, for example, the assumption now taken as fact that Saddam's Iraq was not seeking the raw material for the production of atomic weapons.

Remember Bush's claim in last year's State of the Union address about Iraq's negotiating with an African nation for the "yellowcake" refined from uranium ore? When it turned out that this suspicion was based on forged documents, the embarrassed C.I.A. and humiliated White House confessed error. Great and gleeful derision was heaped on Bush for misleading the world on one of the three bases for intervention.

If anything in the intelligence world can be a sure thing, the conclusion that Bush had blundered badly was it. The husband of a C.I.A. employee was lionized by the antiwar left for having doubted the fraudulent report; Joseph Wilson is promoting his book about alleged intimidation in the exposure of his wife's job, and the ensuing leak investigation has been making headlines ever since.

Comes now a front-page story in The Financial Times by Mark Huband, that international newspaper's security correspondent, headlined "Intelligence Backs Claims Iraq Had Talks on Uranium."

Were the documents on which Bush based his charge fake? Yes; though "legal constraints" prevent the F.T. and the Italian magazine Panorama from identifying the suspected forger, the source is reportedly a convicted con man who tried to peddle phony yellowcake papers to several spy services. No wonder everybody belatedly ran from any notion that Iraq sought the uranium product from Niger.

But hold that horselaugh: "Embarrassment on fake documents obscured earlier intelligence that Iraq may have been trying to buy uranium," notes an F.T. subheading. Huband writes: "Three intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence . . . had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq. This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programs."

A close reading of the article suggests the original human source was Italian, whose tip was confirmed by British and French electronic intercepts. C.I.A. analysts, who often disdain data not gathered by us, ignored the real thing until they were suckered by the forged documents.

Was Iraq, like Iran and Libya, in the secret market for atomic material? This article does not yet prove it, but neither does the falsity of some of the data prove the opposite. A safe bet for thee and me is to dispense with certitude.

In the months and years ahead, we are highly likely (almost wrote "sure") to get more evidence from seekers after W.M.D. truth. These range from the new Iraqi government to ousted officials, from the coalition's official team to freelance former spooks and serious journalists.

Don't jump to hasty derision. As Mark Twain advised, the problem is not just what we don't know, but what we do know that ain't so.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:22 am

DVD Burner wrote:
WASHINGTON wrote: Olson's wife, Barbara, died in the Sept. 11 attacks, and he became a prominent defender of the government's anti-terrorism policies.
I really hate to say anything bad about the dead but I really have no problems telling the truth about them either.

She was the ULTAMATE BITCH.

Good riddens.
and I am sure you know the truth, only the truth, nothing but the truth...
so help you God?

You would be more convincing to me, if you could spell correctly.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:53 am

Simply Joel wrote: and I am sure you know the truth, only the truth, nothing but the truth...
so help you God?
I kidd you not. Bill Maher used to have her on his show all the time for that very reason. And called her on it every time she was on. ( I miss that show.)

Also, why is it that every time you or someone similar gets uptight with what someone says, instead of pulling cites to refute or critisize what it is you disagree with, with fact you get on their case about spelling?
who really cares about spelling. does the point get across? I'm sure it does because all you have on a person is their spelling. :lol:
Joel you are too funny.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:39 am

dear Joel...if you can ever tear yourself away from ex-cia saffire try
http://www.counterpunch.org/

for some "intelligent" discourse
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
Silver 2
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: DC/Northern VA

Post by Silver 2 » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:05 am

All but one of the justices is past 60. The oldest, Justice John Paul Stevens, is 84. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist turns 80 this fall.
The fact that they are hanging in there gives me hope that they will last until a new and sane administration takes over.

Register and VOTE people.
I like playing with fire.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:08 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote: and I am sure you know the truth, only the truth, nothing but the truth...
so help you God?
I kidd you not. Bill Maher used to have her on his show all the time for that very reason. And called her on it every time she was on. ( I miss that show.)

Also, why is it that every time you or someone similar gets uptight with what someone says, instead of pulling cites to refute or critisize what it is you disagree with, with fact you get on their case about spelling?
who really cares about spelling. does the point get across? I'm sure it does because all you have on a person is their spelling. :lol:
Joel you are too funny.
I am sticking to the basics... spelling first, then grammar, then good use of logic...

and yeah, i am funny, but my points are as valid as yours.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:13 am

cowboyangel wrote:dear Joel...if you can ever tear yourself away from ex-cia saffire try
http://www.counterpunch.org/

for some "intelligent" discourse
what i ask when given another source is... what is their intent on writing what they write...
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:14 am

Joel, Joel, Joel,

You should know better than that. You know out of experience that time after time again on this board I will come out on top if you want to take the route of catching me on spelling and grammer istead of sticking to the facts of my points when posted.

However, if you want to take that path, it's up to you.

either way I win. :lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:17 am

besides you know I outsource my writing. :lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:18 am

DVD Burner wrote:Joel, Joel, Joel,

You should know better than that. You know out of experience that time after time again on this board I will come out on top if you want to take the route of catching me on spelling and grammer istead of sticking to the facts of my points when posted.

However, if you want to take that path, it's up to you.

either way I win. :lol:
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

DVD Burner wrote:besides you know I outsource my writing. :lol:
You ought to get your money back then.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:20 am

I am almost ornery.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:33 am

Simply Joel wrote:I am almost ornery.
You'll still be Joel. :lol:

and I dont outsource for eplaya. Not cost effective.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:10 am

June 30, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Calling Bush a Liar
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

So is President Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Fahrenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.
Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Fahrenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.


Re-read the above paragraph a few times so it will sink in.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:39 pm

So, Tipper Gore's attempts at censorship... Yay or nay
nay!

and so I would have just as big of a problem if Tipper were caught in a public forum saying fuck. I never liked that bitch anyway.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:00 pm

stuart wrote:
So, Tipper Gore's attempts at censorship... Yay or nay
nay!

and so I would have just as big of a problem if Tipper were caught in a public forum saying fuck. I never liked that bitch anyway.
Oh hey man, she plays a mean set of drums. :lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Badger » Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:33 pm

and I dont outsource for eplaya. Not cost effective.
Outsourcing suggest that there's a customer paying for content and/or something original. No wonder you're not making any money.
Desert dogs drink deep.

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:31 pm

has anyone even bothered to ask Lydia what she thinks?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:49 am

July 1, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Dude, Where's That Elite?
By BARBARA EHRENREICH

You can call Michael Moore all kinds of things — loudmouthed, obnoxious and self-promoting, for example. The anorexic Ralph Nader, in what must be an all-time low for left-wing invective, has even called him fat. The one thing you cannot call him, though, is a member of the "liberal elite."

Sure, he's made a ton of money from his best sellers and award-winning documentaries. But no one can miss the fact that he's a genuine son of the U.S. working class — of a Flint autoworker, in fact — because it's built right into his "branding," along with flannel shirts and baseball caps.

My point is not to defend Moore, who — with a platoon of bodyguards and a legal team starring Mario Cuomo — hardly needs any muscle from me. I just think it's time to retire the "liberal elite" label, which, for the past 25 years, has been deployed to denounce anyone to the left of Colin Powell. Thus, last winter, the ultra-elite right-wing Club for Growth dismissed followers of Howard Dean as a "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show." I've experienced it myself: speak up for the downtrodden, and someone is sure to accuse you of being a member of the class that's doing the trodding.

The notion of a sinister, pseudocompassionate liberal elite has been rebutted, most recently in Thomas Frank's brilliant new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?," which says the aim is "to cast the Democrats as the party of a wealthy, pampered, arrogant elite that lives as far as it can from real Americans, and to represent Republicanism as the faith of the hard-working common people of the heartland, an expression of their unpretentious, all-American ways, just like country music and Nascar."

Like the notion of social class itself, the idea of a liberal elite originated on the left, among early 20th-century anarchists and Trotskyites who noted, correctly, that the Soviet Union was spawning a "new class" of power-mad bureaucrats. The Trotskyites brought this theory along with them when they mutated into neocons in the 60's, and it was perhaps their most precious contribution to the emerging American right. Backed up by the concept of a "liberal elite," right-wingers could crony around with their corporate patrons in luxuriously appointed think tanks and boardrooms — all the while purporting to represent the average overworked Joe.

Beyond that, the idea of a liberal elite nourishes the right's perpetual delusion that it is a tiny band of patriots bravely battling an evil power structure. Note how richly the E-word embellishes the screeds of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and their co-ideologues, as in books subtitled "Rescuing American from the Media Elite," "How Elites from Hollywood, Politics and the U.N. Are Subverting America," and so on. Republican right-wingers may control the White House, both houses of Congress and a good chunk of the Supreme Court, but they still enjoy portraying themselves as Davids up against a cosmopolitan-swilling, corgi-owning Goliath.

Yes, there are some genuinely rich folks on the left — Barbra Streisand, Arianna Huffington, George Soros — and for all I know, some of them are secret consumers of French chardonnays and loathers of televised wrestling. But the left I encounter on my treks across the nation is heavy on hotel housekeepers, community college students, laid-off steelworkers and underpaid schoolteachers. Even many liberal celebrities — like Jesse Jackson and Gloria Steinem — hail from decidedly modest circumstances. David Cobb, the Green Party's presidential candidate, is another proud product of poverty.

It's true that there are plenty of working-class people — though far from a majority — who will vote for Bush and the white-tie crowd that he has affectionately referred to as his "base." But it would be redundant to speak of a "conservative elite" when the ranks of our corporate rulers are packed tight with the kind of Republicans who routinely avoid the humiliating discomforts of first class for travel by private jet.

So liberals can take comfort from the fact that our most visible spokesman is, despite his considerable girth, an invulnerable target for the customary assault weapon of the right. I meant to comment on his movie, too, but the lines at my local theater are still prohibitively long.

Barbara Ehrenreich will be a guest columnist for the Op-Ed page through July. Thomas L. Friedman is on book leave for three months.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:38 am

yeah!!! Eherenreich!!!!!! did you read "Nickeled and Dimed"?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
ebaynelson
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:28 pm
Location: Detroit Rock City
Contact:

Post by ebaynelson » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:49 am

I would like to suggest the option of civil war should Bush win another term. Blue states vs. Red?

Maybe instead of war, Blue could just ask Red for a divorce.

Blue can keep the major progressive cities, Red the rural countryside and the Old South. Atlanta? Well, maybe the Blue can offer its residents asylum in Palo Alto or something.

Blue and Red will have joint custody of the original Constitution, but Blue will have sole custody of the Bill of Rights. Liberals who choose to remain in Red states will be counted as 3/5 of a resident for representation purposes.

The Supreme Court will have to be split. Red can certainly have Scalia and Thomas without argument. Rehnquist will have to peel a few gold stripes off his shoulder.

Rush Limbaugh, currently a resident of New York City, will be held as an enemy combatant. How about re-opening Alcatraz?

[color=darkred]~~~
The solutions all are simple... But they're simple only when you know already what they are.

Robert M. Pirsig
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance[/color]

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:04 pm

Some Iraqis Want Saddam Freed, Back as President
By Lin Noueihed

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein stands accused of gassing Iraq 's Kurds, crushing its Shi'ites and condemning thousands to death in his dreaded torture chambers, but some Iraqis still want him back as president.

"I don't know why they are trying Saddam. He is guilty of nothing," said Ahmed Abdallah, a student from Baghdad's Sunni Muslim Adhamiya district, once favored by Saddam.

"If it were up to me, I would bring him back as president today, not tomorrow."

Downcast but defiant, a thinner Saddam arrived at a courthouse in handcuffs and chains on Thursday to hear the charges against him.

The images, the first since U.S. forces found him hiding in a hole near his home town of Tikrit in December, stung the pride of some Iraqis who saw his public disgrace as a slap in the face for all Arabs.

"He was a president, an Arab leader. I feel all Arabs are humiliated when I see him as a prisoner like this, no matter what he did," said Faleh Jasem, a driver who was watching the first footage of Saddam facing an Iraqi judge.

"I would feel so hurt if they executed him, because he took a heroic position. He stood up to America and that makes him a real man in my eyes."

"HE WILL ALWAYS BE IN OUR HEARTS"

Many Iraqis want Saddam to be executed, some say they would rather he suffer a more protracted punishment for 35 years of Baathist brutality that saw Sunni Muslim Arabs favored at the expense of the Shi'ite majority and the minority Kurds.


Iraq's interim government is considering restoring the death penalty, suspended during the U.S.-led occupation, but those who benefited from his rule hailed him as a strongman who only crushed bad apples.

"Saddam was our president and we were happy with him so who are these infidels to take him away?" said Hana Majid, whose eldest son lost his job as a senior officer when the United States dissolved the army after last year's war.

"All those people in mass graves were just rabble who deserved everything they got."

In the first step toward a trial that may not start for months, Saddam was accused of suppressing Kurdish and Shi'ite revolts after the 1991 Gulf War, massacring Kurds, killing religious leaders and political figures over three decades.

"The Americans are punishing Saddam for standing up to them," said Mohammed al-Sammaraei, who runs a music shop in Adhamiya, where pictures of the former ruler still take pride of place in some living rooms.

"Under Saddam, I used to work in the government. Now I am sitting at home," said Abdallah, another Adhimiya resident who declined to give his full name.

"Saddam was a part of us for 35 years. He will always be in our hearts," he said touching his chest.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:49 pm

"All those people in mass graves were just rabble who deserved everything they got."
I work with a very diverse work force. There are people from all over the globe. You would be astounded over the percentage of Arabs that hate the Kurds. Most of the folks from Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait that I talked to felt that the Kurds didn't matter in terms of being citizens, having basic human rights, or being oppressed. From what I gathered, they were the 'bums' of the Arab world.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

So much for all men/women being created equal....

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:15 pm

This is a response to Rob's observations.... and simply posted for everyone's general knowledge...


Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. Egalitarian doctrines tend to express the idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term "egalitarian" is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Locked

Return to “Open Discussion”